ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2022
Spontaneous resolution rates in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction managed with massage or topical antibiotics compared with observation alone.
Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardized Lacrimal Sac Massage vs Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Infants: A Noninferiority Randomized Trial.JAMA ophthalmology · 2026Trial
- Popularity versus quality in TikTok educational videos on congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Bacteriologic profile and antimicrobial resistance in infants aged 1 year or younger with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Probing and nasolacrimal intubation outcomes in children over 18 Months of age with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: clinical guideline.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsTo determine if nasolacrimal massage or topical antibiotics are associated with higher rates of resolution compared with observation alone in a population-based cohort of infants with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO).
methodsThe medical records of all children <5 years diagnosed with CNLDO while residing in Olmsted County, Minnesota from 1 January 1995 through 31 December 2004 were retrospectively reviewed for type of management and non-surgical resolution of tearing.
resultsAmong 1958 infants diagnosed and followed for CNLDO, 516 (26.4%) were merely observed, 506 (25.8%) were prescribed massage alone, 485 (24.8%) were prescribed at least one course of topical antibiotics, 397 (20.3%) were prescribed both topical antibiotics and massage, and 54 (2.8%) had no documented therapy. Non-surgical resolution, occurring in 1669 (85.2%) during a median follow-up of 3.1 months (range: 1 week-248 months), was 74.6% for the merely observed, 89.7% for those prescribed digital massage, 87.0% for those prescribed antibiotics and 90.7% for those treated with both. This comparison was significant in unadjusted (p<0.001) and multivariable comparisons (p<0.001).
conclusionPrescribing topical antibiotics or digital massage for infants with CNLDO in this cohort, individually or in combination, was associated with a higher rate of spontaneous resolution than observation alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.